Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 695U / 2000State vs Ramzan Khan (2026:Rj-Jd:20571) on 28 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20571]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 357/2000
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Ramzan Khan S/o Muneer Khan R/o Rajgarh District Bikaner
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarika Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment 28/04/2026
1. The present matter was initially instituted as an application seeking leave to appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused-respondent. Leave to appeal having been granted at an earlier stage, the proceedings thereafter stood converted into a regular criminal appeal and have now come up for final adjudication on merits.
2. By way of the instant appeal, the State has assailed the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 03.03.2000 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Act Bikaner in Sessions case No.32/96 (149/97), whereby accused- respondent Ramzan Khan, then posted as Junior Clerk / Supply Clerk in the Tehsil Office, Bhadra, came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20571] (2 of 6) [CRLA-357/2000]
3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that complainant Lalchand, a kerosene dealer, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the respondent had demanded illegal gratification for renewal of his licence. Acting upon the complaint, verification proceedings were allegedly undertaken, followed by a trap operation in which an amount of Rs.600/- was recovered from the respondent. After investigation and sanction for prosecution, charge-sheet came to be filed.
3.1. The learned trial Court, upon full-fledged trial, recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, considering the defence evidence and evaluating documentary material, returned a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification, and consequently acquitted the respondent. Hence the instant appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record of the case, including the impugned judgment.
5. At the very threshold, it deserves notice that the present appeal arises out of an order of acquittal. The settled canon of criminal jurisprudence ordains that once an accused has secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence stands further reinforced. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, manifestly illegal, grossly unreasonable, or founded (Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20571] (3 of 6) [CRLA-357/2000] upon misreading of material evidence, appellate interference is neither warranted nor desirable.
6. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Judge has undertaken a meticulous, threadbare and judicious appraisal of the evidence and has recorded conclusions resting on sound legal foundation.
6.1. It is trite that in prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to bring home guilt unless the foundational fact of demand of illegal gratification is proved by cogent and trustworthy evidence. 6.2. In the case at hand, the allegation of demand substantially rested upon the solitary testimony of complainant Lalchand. No independent witness has supported the assertion that the accused demanded bribe. The trap witnesses themselves did not depose regarding any demand made in their presence. The prosecution also failed to produce any unimpeachable corroborative circumstance lending assurance to the complainant's version. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court, therefore, rightly scrutinised the testimony of the complainant with due caution.
6.3. The record reveals that the complainant was subjected to extensive cross-examination wherein several prior irregularities, departmental proceedings, penalties and disputes concerning his dealership surfaced. Material was brought on record indicating (Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20571] (4 of 6) [CRLA-357/2000] that complaints and regulatory action had earlier been processed against him through the concerned office where the accused was functioning. Thus, the possibility of prior animus or institutional resentment could not be lightly discarded. The learned trial Court was justified in holding that the complainant was an interested witness whose testimony required substantial corroboration before conviction could safely be founded thereupon. 6.4. The respondent consistently took the stand that the amount received pertained to licence renewal fees and charges relating to duplicate licence formalities concerning the complainant and his brother. Significantly, evidence was available on record that relevant applications for renewal / duplicate licence were pending. 6.5. Further, even prosecution witnesses admitted that amounts were payable towards such official purposes. The defence explanation, therefore, was neither fanciful nor inherently improbable. Rather, it emerged as a plausible and reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Once such explanation appears probable, the statutory presumption stands effectively rebutted.
6.6. The prosecution laid considerable emphasis on recovery of tainted currency and positive chemical wash. However, where receipt of money itself is admitted but explained as lawful receipt connected with official fee, recovery alone cannot substitute proof of corrupt demand. Thus, the learned trial Court rightly appreciated that phenolphthalein test only demonstrates handling (Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20571] (5 of 6) [CRLA-357/2000] of notes; it does not, by itself, establish the illicit character of the transaction.
6.7. The record also indicates that several persons were allegedly present at the relevant place and time, yet no sincere effort was made to examine such natural witnesses. The prosecution's omission to present the best available independent evidence creates a legitimate evidentiary infirmity. Where better evidence is withheld, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
6.8. The impugned judgment reflects mature judicial scrutiny, balanced reasoning and adherence to settled legal principles. The conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are possible, reasonable and firmly borne out from the record. Merely because another view may also be arguable is no ground to unsettle an acquittal. This Court finds no perversity, no material illegality, no misapplication of law and no miscarriage of justice warranting appellate intervention.
6.9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than lawful remuneration. The learned trial Court was fully justified in extending benefit of doubt and recording acquittal, therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20571] (6 of 6) [CRLA-357/2000]
7. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 03.03.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.32/96 (149/97) in favour of accused- respondent Ramzan Khan is affirmed.
8. Record of the trial Court be remitted back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J 38-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:17:25 AM) (Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 08:35:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)